In a stunner, four challengers qualified today to run for Mayor of Santa Ana, perhaps dooming the campaign of Alfredo Amezcua, the former Rancho Santiago Community College District Trustee who was the first announced opponent to the incumbent, Mayor Miguel Pulido.

The other challengers include Charles Hart, a Republican and county government worker who is trying to pass the California bar exam; Roy Alvarado, whose nomination signatures are still being verified; and past mayoral candidate George Collins, a documentary filmmaker and Republican who lives in Ward 6. Collins received 13.8% of the vote in 2008, when he first opposed Pulido, according to Smart Voter. In 2006, Collins ran for the Santa Ana City Council, receiving 16.9% of the vote, according to Smart Voter.

Alvarado is registered as a Decline to State voter. He is a retired contractor who is originally from New Mexico. It is telling that you cannot find him on Facebook. Nor can you find any pictures of him online. He often speaks at Council meetings, where he tends to oppose most things.

If Amezcua had been the sole opponent he might have had a shot. Now the opposition vote will be split and essentially nullified.

In related news, Councilmember Michele Martinez did not draw an opponent, in Ward 2. She has promised on Facebook to walk precincts for her fellow Council incumbents.

Art..Even though his name will still appear on the ballot, do you think Amezqua will “drop out” and through his support behind Pulido to save the embarrassment of get his backside kicked? If he gets 3rd or 4th in the race, which could happen, he will never be able to run again. If he says he supports Pulido he can save face and keep his powder dry for 2012. Or do you think he has done too much damage already with his trash talking Dentist out there putting down the work the Mayor has done and therefore the Pulido would never accept his support?

That is the point. Amezcua would have done the same damn thing. Pla is his pal too.

francisco barragan

Posted August 9, 2010 at 8:45 AM

ADMIN:

1) How do we know that the Grand Jury was tainted by a “disgruntled former commissioner”?

Is it just because they were “disgruntled”?
Is it because they were a former commissioner?

In other words, What evidence is there that this former commissioner had UNDUE or IMPROPER influence over the other Grand Jury Commissioners, if any?

2) And how does this PERCEIVED or alleged conflict by the disgruntled commissioner stack up against the ACTUAL evidence reviewed or reported on by the Grand Jury?

3) How do we know that Candidate Amezcua would have done the same thing that Mayor Pulido is accused of?

4) Does the fact that someone else could have done a wrong (what the Mayor is accused of) excuse the Mayor from this?

5) Candidates, especially INCUMBENTS must be free of conflicts of interests in FACT OR APPEARANCE. And many times an INCUMBENT may not be prosecuted either for lack of prosecutable evidence (more of a technicality) or for lack of will.

Thus, How much should voters factors this into their decision-making especially since an Incumbent must be free of any conflicts whether in FACT or APPEARANCE, or if he may have actually done what he is accused of, although he was not tried for this?

Glen Stroud was ousted from two City Commissions, thereafter the Grand Jury investigation began. He was on that jury and partook in interviews of key players. He should have recused himself.

None of the allegations resulted in any criminal charges.

Amezcua was a business partner with George Pla, in the failed experiment that was the Santa Ana Business Bank. Pla owns Cordoba. Do you really think Al would not have done the same thing for his pal Pla? Really?

I did not like how the Cordoba contract went down, and wrote that here on this blog. I don’t agree with everything our City Council does. That said, overall, they are moving in the right direction.

Now let me pose you a question. We have published evidence that Amezcua used his business address as his voting address when he was on the RSCCD board. He did NOT live in the Area he was elected to serve. He has gone back and forth over the years registering at his home at Morrison Park and at his office on Broadway. He very clearly does not live at his office. Nativo Lopez is in jail RIGHT NOW for similar monkey business. Ricardo Alarcon also is in trouble for the same thing. What say you about Amezcua?

francisco barragan

Posted August 9, 2010 at 10:23 AM

Art,

Thank you for your input.

1) I agree with you, if Glenn Stroud was conflicted he should have definitely recused himself from any VOTING decision by the Grand Jury. However, I honestly don’t know how this also affects his or anybody’s ability to ASK QUESTIONS in an interview. I would imagine that it would benefit me to have a TOUGH QUESTIONER present, especially if I am trying to clear my name, but again I don’t know how this affects the ability to ask questions if perceived to have a conflict.

2) My recollection is that there were a couple of articles written, and a call by citizens of Santa Ana asking for a Grand Jury investigation, so it seems not all was of Mr. Stroud’s making.

3) Even if “none of the allegations resulted in any criminal charges”, that is why I asked the question, how should this factor with the voters of Santa Ana decision-making given that sometimes a person may commit a wrong and not be prosecuted for it, or especially because an incumbent must be free from any conflicts of interests whether in Fact or APPEARANCE.

4) I honestly do not know how Alfredo Amezcua or anyone else for that matter would have acted. I would have to look at the EVIDENCE, or several strong indicators of alleged wrongdoing to form an opinion, although this might still have an element of uncertainty on my part. But this is why I also ask the question, assuming that any other person would have acted improperly, does this excuse the Mayor of it if he acted improperly, if others would have too?

5) Art, I am trying to learn more about candidates, which I think we must all do, and I was concerned when I read here that Alfredo Amezcua may have done something improper. I think we all agree that if any candidate or incumbent has broken the law, and this is egregious and not a simple unintentional mistake, then definitely they should face the legal consequences, and/or the “wrath of the voters”.

A) Art, I don’t know how the RESIDENCY or MAILING requirements work for DIFFERENT ELECTED POSITIONS. If what Alfredo Amezcua did is clearly illegal, and he did it knowing full well of the illegality, YES this should factor in the voters decision-making, and with whatever legal consequences he would be liable for.

B) However, before I jump to any conclusions, I would want to know if what he did is a clear legal violation or not, and the consequences or penalties for it? I may be misinformed here, but for example, aren’t candidates for US Congress allowed to seek to represent in a district they don’t live in? If true, we may not like it (“carpetbagging”), and as voters we can certainly express our pleasure or displeasure, although this may not necessarily be illegal.

I feel sorry for Amezqua. Lawyer’s like him are having a tough time in this economy and he thought if Pulido wouldn’t run, that he might have a shot at a little cash and some medical insurance. Now these other three fools who tossed their hats in ring are messing everything up. What’s an F-Troop veterano to do?

Here’s my prediction. Amezqua will say he’s not going to run hard or needs to spend more time with his family or work on his lawyer business, etc so can’t devote the time needed for the campaign. This is just an excuse for the crushing defeat he is facing. When the dust settles it will be

1)Pulido

2)Collins

*3)Hart

*4)Amezqua

This will be Amezqua’s last political campaign and future Mayor’s races will include current Councilmembers when Pulido is ready to step aside.

The Hart/Amezqua battle for 3rd/4th will be tight and within a few percentage points.

It’s very possible he only took the bar one time during that five year period and consequently passed on the first attempt. However, between the June graduation 1985 and the December 1990 swearing in ceremony, the California bar was offered 11 times.

Not that it matters much…but you seem to suggest CONTRADICTORY and INCONSISTENT positions to your supporters.

a) On the one hand you say above that they should NOT vote for an incumbent i.e. PULIDO, and
b) Within the last 2-3 weeks you were throwing your support FOR PULIDO.

“Stanislav Fiala
Posted July 25, 2010 at 6:45 PM

I agree that his why I have endorsed Pulido as his opponent in 2006 election and have instructed my 10,000 suporters from the 2004 election to vote for Pulido instead for Gordon.
I have even made a motto for my constituency which no one, except for Pulido, got:
LOVE SANTA ANA MORE THAN YOU HATE PULIDO”